ORDER 27.8.2010 — This application under Section 439(2) of the CrPC has been filed by the informant in G.R. Case No.345 of 2009 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Titilagarh for cancellation of bail granted to the present opposite party in the said G.R. case by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Titilagarh by his order dated 31.7.2009 passed in BLAPL No.218 of 2009. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the allegation against the present opposite party as per the FIR in the said case is that the opposite party by practising inducement and coercion had been keeping physical relationship with the daughter of the informant, aged about 16 years, since six months prior to the lodging of the FIR. On 15.7.2009 on the inducement and instiga¬tion of the opposite party, the informant’s daughter took away a cash of Rs.40,000/- and some gold ornaments, her wearing apparels and her certificate and left with the opposite party in the mid-night. The FIR was accordingly registered for commission of offences under Sections 363/366, IPC. 3. On the date of lodging of the FIR the opposite party was apprehended and he filed bail application before the S.D.J.M., Titilagarh which was rejected. Thereafter, the opposite party approached the Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in BLAPL No.218 of 2009. By order dated 31.7.2009, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge released the opposite party on bail with certain conditions. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the peti¬tioner that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh had granted bail to the opposite party illegally without taking into consideration the relevant materials on record. His particular submission is that though the case has been registered u/ss. 363/366, IPC in fact the materials on record make out also a case u/s. 376, IPC and therefore the bail order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is vitiated for non-consideration of that aspect. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the Court below has taken into consideration all relevant materials and has given good reasons for passing the bail order. It is his further submission that even after being released on bail the opposite party has never misused the liberty granted to him and therefore the bail order needs no interference. 5. It is his further submission that even after being released on bail the opposite party has never misused the liberty granted to him and therefore the bail order needs no interference. 5. In the case of State of Orissa v. Jagannath Patel and another, 1992 CRI.L.J. 1818 this Court observed as follows :- “The power to take into custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspec¬tion. The power is of extraordinary nature and is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases when with preponderance of probabilities it is clear that the accused has misused the liber¬ty, or compelling reasons exist, or grant of bail was illegal and/or was by improper, arbitrary exercise of discretion. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made. When it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom of enjoying bail, cancellation is called for.” In the said case though the Court came to the conclusion that grant of bail in favour of the accused by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge was not justified, it refused to interfere with the bail order holding that though the accused persons were released on bail eight months before, there was no allegation or material about misusing of liberty by them while on bail. 6. In the case of Manjit Prakash and others v. Sobha Devi and another (2008) 41 OCR (SC)- 108, it has been observed that at the time of dealing with an application for cancellation of bail, the Court has to consider whether irrelevant materials of sub¬stantial nature and not of a trival nature were taken into con¬sideration. It was also observed that cancellation of bail is a harsh order as it takes away the liberty of an individual and should not be lightly resorted to. 7. While granting bail to the opposite party, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh has taken into consideration all relevant materials with regard to the allegation that since six months prior to the date of alleged kidnapping the opposite party kept sexual relationship with the victim allegedly threatening her that he would commit suicide if she did not accede to his request. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh has taken into consideration all relevant materials with regard to the allegation that since six months prior to the date of alleged kidnapping the opposite party kept sexual relationship with the victim allegedly threatening her that he would commit suicide if she did not accede to his request. It also took into consideration the age of the victim girl as mentioned in the certificate issued by the school and also as determined on medical examination, which was 16-18 years. It also took into consideration the medical report of the victim which suggested that there was no bodily injury suggesting sexual intercourse or any sign or symptom of recent sexual intercourse. 8. It also transpires from the records that the statement of the victim was recorded u/s 164 of CrPC which reveals that she and the opposite party were in love with each other since about two years and that as per previous plan she had left house with the opposite party. 9. It is clear from the bail order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that no irrelevant material was taken into consideration or any relevant material was omitted from consider¬ation while granting bail to the opposite party. Besides, there is no allegation or material that though released on bail since more than a year, the opposite party has ever misused the liberty granted to him. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is not a fit case to cancel the bail granted in favour of the opposite party. The CRLMA is accordingly dismissed. CRLMA dismissed.